The Most Qualified Something-or-other

For the Nth time, recently, I have heard that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate in history.  And I'm wondering, what on earth can that mean.

So far as I know, there are exactly three qualifications for the presidency.  The candidate must:

1. Be a natural born citizen,
2. Be at least 35 yrs of age, and
3. Have won the election.

The brother-in-law who has been sleeping on your couch for the last six months would be qualified for the presidency, if he won the election.  Of course, we tend to look for some more qualities in our presidents and that, I think, is the key to making sense of the Left's assertion.

Keep in mind, the Left are saying Hillary is the most qualified candidate "In History"!  More qualified than George Washington?  More qualified than Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower?  Really?!  Obviously, their meaning of "qualified" is rather different from what you and I mean by it.

The presidency is an executive office.  More, the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  Historically, we looked to men with a track record of getting things done, and we have had a strong bias towards men with military experience.  Two thirds of all presidents have had some kind of military experience.

Dwight David Eisenhower, 34th President of the U.S., General of The Army, was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during the greatest war in human history.  George Washington created the U.S. by leading men in battle under desperate circumstances, and then declined the crown that was offered him (I still can't get over that).

But, Washington did not lie about a non-existent rape culture.  Eisenhower did not lie about gender pay equity.  Evidently, in the minds of the Leftists, lying about gender pay equity makes Hillary Rodham Clinton more qualified than Dwight David Eisenhower.

You should come to your own conclusions about that.